I've seen apparent demonstrations of replacing the sticker on the back of a Casascius coin, but have there ever been reports of someone actually getting ripped off this way?
Seems even more relevant now, PSBTs would make this a lot simpler to implement.
1 #bitcoin block / 10 mins
1,440 mins / day
365 days / year
= 52,560 blocks / year
But by my math, the network is actually running ~1,680 blocks 'ahead of schedule' in 2019 (as expected, when hashpower is increasing over time). Thats about 11.667 days worth of blocks, which is ~3.2% more than expected.
Happy new years!
Newbie #bash question:
I'm trying to run a command located in /usr/local/bin/, via a shell script over ssh. But bash keeps giving a 'command not found' error.
If I modify the script to specify the command's full file path, it works just fine.
Why is this?
$PATH includes /usr/local/bin/. Why can't bash find it?
From birdsite: https://twitter.com/bittlecat/status/1207621591820951552
A #Bitcoin user attempted to withdraw BTC from BinanceSGD, but was blocked due to that user's participation in Wasabi coinjoins after a previous withdrawal.
If you think this breaks or somehow invalidates coinjoin, then I think you didn't understand the stakes to begin with: did we really expect KYC'd businesses to just ignore this? Of course they're going to fight back! This is why there are ideas like P2EP out there, the battle has only just begun.
One of the most potent points in this: its becoming difficult to reconcile the risks of these data collection systems against the benefits to the actual users.
So whats next? A culture of being okay with no assumed location-data privacy? Or a radical shift to something new?
You are the product.
Some related links, from a couple quick searches:
I've always thought it would be nice to have some hexadecimal dice to roll your own private keys, is there a reason I haven't ever seen this otherwise?
Encoding to WIF would make it less user-friendly of an option, but all else aside it seems like a verifiable way to supply user-generated entropy. Easier than flipping a coin a couple hundred times, at least..
Acting in unexpected ways can be an important technique for defeating chain analysis, so I think the naive assumption is that a fake coinjoin will be helpful.
There may be legitimate use-cases for a fake coinjoin, but considering the input aggregation, you'd have to be very careful to not do more damage than good. Post-mix UTXO management would become even more important than normal!
Does participating in a 'fake coinjoin' improve your privacy? (you own all inputs, but tx is architected to mimic a real coinoin)
I suspect that in many cases, it would be detrimental to your privacy.
A coinjoin allows you to create uncertainty about the history of each output, but information about inputs is a different issue entirely. If a third party knows your UTXO-set, and you consume many of them in a fake coinjoin, then there is no uncertainty about the outputs (payments aside).
Check this out, scam-ception: https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/91943/how-do-i-recover-from-a-cryptocurrency-scam
This question describes the plight of a victim of a #bitcoin investment scam; they're asking what can be done to recover funds.
A bunch of answers pop up, and then eventually one that links to a sketchy 'recovery site' is posted, and quickly marked as accepted.
So the whole Q appears to be a set up: The scammers are trying to scam people that are distressed.. because they were just scammed! Terrible.
The year is 2036, a powerful distributed AI has learned how to trade it's smarts for BTC.
Eventually, Humans abandon the #bitcoin network after the AI finally manages to acquire and horde the last meaningful bit of the BTC supply away.
What next? How will the poor humans trade? What will the AI do with its now worthless riches?
"Ethash has proven remarkably successful at ASIC resistance; after three years and billions of dollars of block rewards, ASICs do exist but are at best 2-5 times more power and cost-efficient than GPUs."
L O L
1) I think I would call that a soft-fork, that induces a reorg.
2) The situation isn't extremely clear to me (details of the double spend? How is it related?), but I suppose it would be inconsequential for the old nodes (assuming there isn't a reorg that happens when miners switched back to the old chain)
3) is interesting: is the gossip protocol part of consensus? I suppose this would create a hardfork, since new/old nodes cannot talk easily
What if it was called a "security fee" instead of a "transaction fee"? #bitcoin
techno sapien demands techno sovereignty
The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!